Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 Parameters |
| Altman, R. (Ed.). (1992). Sound theory sound practice. New York: Routledge. |
 
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 14/12/2004, 20:18 | |
| Gilbert, S. B. (2016). Perceived realism of virtual environments depends on authenticity. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 25(4), 322–324. |
 
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 23/05/2021, 09:53 | |
| "While the perception of a virtual environment (VE) is usually described in terms of its level of immersion and users’ sense of presence, the construct of authenticity might be more useful. The authenticity of a VE depends on whether the affordances and simulations chosen in its implementation support (1) users’ expectations based on their Bayesian priors for regularities in the real world and (2) the users’ intentions in the VE . . . the term ‘‘authenticity’’ refers to whether the virtual environment provides the experience expected by the user, both consciously and unconsciously." | |
|
"A VE with higher immersion, so the argument goes, should lead to higher fidelity, and generate a greater sense of presence, the subjective experience felt by the user. But if I put you in a highly immersive environment and give you badly designed content to experience, will you perceive the VE as realistic and experience presence? Probably not. What’s missing from this dichotomy of immersion (objective, system-focused) and presence (subjective, user-focused) is a computational theory about the extent to which the VE reflects the expected regularities of world that it is attempting to represent—its authenticity. Authenticity draws on two streams of thought: expectations and motivations." |
|
|
"Authenticity’s second stream of thought comes from art historians and archaeologists who think carefully about the past, and who often seek to establish whether artifacts found in the present are authentic. While establishing an artifact’s date and place of origin might be a matter of objective fact, Lovata (2007) argues that these facts are simply nominal authenticity, and that a richer, more complex sense of authenticity is context dependent, and depends on the motivations of the observer." |
|
|
"I suggest that immersion is the system-based factor that influences presence, and that authenticity is the human-based factor that influences presence" |
|
| Lastra, J. (1992). Reading, writing, and representing sound. In R. Altman (Ed), Sound Theory Sound Practice. (pp. 65–86). New York: Routledge. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 03/03/2006, 13:09 | |
| Here, Lastra is paraphrasing Chrstian Metz to whom what is important is the functional or narrative use of sound in film rather than whether a sound is authentic or not. "...what matters is the ability to identify the source of the sound. ...the sound event must be legible -- it must be recongnizable across a series of different contexts as a culturally defined signifying unit. Against the definition of sound as an essentially unrepeatable event, Metz describes sound as an eminently repeatable and intelligible structure." | |
| Discussing the notion of an 'original' sound prior to recording and reproduction: "...the primary ideological effect of sound recording might be creation of the effect that there is an "original" independent of its representation." | |
|
Developing Altman's description of 1930s sound recording/representation development (spatial fidelity giving way to intelligibility): "A recording with a high degree of reflected sound, or some other indication of spatial signature, is linked to sound considered as an event, while closely-miked sound, with a relatively "contextless" spatial signature, is linked to sound considered as an intelligible structure -- as a signifying element with a larger structure." Although this is usually aplied to speech, Lastra points out that it also applies to sound FX. |
|
| ""real" space is simply not an issue for most images on screen -- their scale and angle are functions of narrative emphasis, not of more or less precise perception." | |
| "Those aspects of a sound which mark it as authentic are never simply self-evident "attributes" of that sound. Only their inscription within a system allowing or requiring them to become perceptible gives them a semiotic import within that system. Thus, the supposed unique attributes of an original sound become significant and, to a certain degree, perceptible as such only through their constitution as signs -- precisely that which is not unique." | |
| Makes the interesting point that, when discussing a recording of sound, much of our understanding of what that sound will be like is derived from assumptions (culturally and technologically derived) as to how that sound was recorded. The sound is therefore pre-structured for us before we get to even hear it. | |
| Runco, M. A. (2023). AI can only produce artificial creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100063. |
|
| Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: alexb44 02/09/2026, 02:04 | |
| "AI does not choose to produce novelty. Like porpoises, it may produce something that is attributed with creativity, but actually it is at most mere novelty, and even this is not intentional." | |
| "The authentic individual expresses ideas and feelings without manipulating them for the sake of others. It may be that AI can avoid filters, but there is no self to express, so no possibility of authenticity." | |
| "[The Lovelace test] was named after Ada Lovelace (1815-1852), daughter of Lord Byron, because she proposed that the critical test for a computer was whether or not it can "originate an idea." That of course puts the emphasis on originality, but it also implies that the underlying process is important. After all, "to originate" describes the process used when something new comes into being. This suggestion of process goes a long way towards answering the question of AI creativity. That is because AI can produce things that are judged to be creative, but judgments are fallible, and, more importantly, AI does not use the same creative process as humans." | |
| "To begin with, AI can be original, and its output is often useful. If AI produces useful output, it may satisfy the requirement of “effectiveness” (also called fit or “utility,” Tsao, Ting, & Johnson, 2019). But creativity is more than originality and effectiveness. Think for a moment about the research on divergent thinking. Tests of divergent thinking are usually scored for originality, but that does not make them tests of creativity. Originality is necessary but not sufficient for creativity. Originality can be wildly ineffective, as is apparent in the divergent thinking of psychotic patients (Eysenck, 1997). Sometimes original things are original precisely because they are worthless." | |
| "It suggested that AI can be original and effective, but it lacks other things that are a part of authentic creativity (e.g., intrinsic motivation, intentionality, authenticity, problem finding). It may be that intentionality covers intrinsic motivation, problem finding, and choice. It may even cover authenticity, at least in the sense that an authentic human regularly chooses (or intends) to express him- or herself (rather than conform)." |